It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter
page: 23share:
reply to post by maybereal11
This may be where we start arguing again...
I'm not interested in drying up discontent, because whoever sets himself to that task is asking the impossible of himself. Discontented people will always find something to be discontented about. You can give them a golden palace full of servants, and they will complain about the color of the draperies or the quality of the servants. Personally, I chalk it up to human greed, which appears to me to not be restricted to those at the top of the heap. It seems to be found in all strata.
Discontent can only be cured by the discontented himself, in his own mind, because that's where discontent starts, regardless of external stimuli. We can't do it for him, he must do it himself if it is to be done at all.
Further, by attacking the rank and file in any of the endeavors you mentioned, whether you attack "supply" side OR "demand" side, you are trying to get at the symptoms, not the disease. Diseases are frequently generated by tiny, specific, organisms which need to be effectively dealt with. It's not effective to beat the body to cure a cold. I'm afraid my analogy may be at a loss, since so many these days are conditioned that medical science often DOES treat symptoms instead of diseases.
So then, I'm not interested in "saving the world" in the usual sense. I'm of the opinion that once the virus is removed, the world can get on with the business of saving itself. Not all will. The worst of the discontented will be... ahem... "content" to be discontented. There will always be those striving to climb to the top of the heap, be the "boss", and own the world. Without vigilance as to their designs, we'll just wind up right back where we are now.
BUT... if, for the time being, we can successfully remove, restrain, or in some other way invalidate and disempower those now thought of as "TPTB", then there is a chance that the world, as is commonly perceived, will be able to heal itself, in a large part. I think that people should be left to their own devices for the most part, barring the disabled, to make of their lives what they will. "THEY" will not allow that willingly, though, because it removes their base of power. Without that power over "others" or "the masses" or whatever one wants to call us, "THEY" are nothing. Nothing at all. Not even in their OWN eyes.
THAT scares hell out of 'em, right down in their cores. They'll never admit that, of course. They'll rage and bluster about how they're something special, "better than", and all that rot, but they KNOW, right where it counts, right down in their middles. I've seen the same sort of thing in other folks around me, and I'll bet you have too. it's the same principle, writ larger.
What's required is for those of us currently trying to rip out one another's throats at the bidding of "THEM" to stop, look around, and ask ourselves "who is really the enemy again?" When that happens, it will start to pull the rug of support right out from under "THEM", and the games will begin in earnest, as "THEY" try to regain and reassert "THEIR" control over the power base, which is us peons.
All that I'm laying out here is a strategy, not a tactic. Tactical discussions are best left in the Ops Room. With the basic strategy, however, one can figure out a tactical approach.
Again using the drug cartels as an example, who do you go after? The users? the suppliers? What part of the suppliers? If you just take out the suppliers, and if you could take ALL of them out, never to be in business again, you still have a problem. Lots of pissed off junkies with no way to get their fix. You may not know this, but I do - a junkie in need of a fix is one of the most dangerous things in the world. A junkie right after his fix is one of the easiest victims in the world.
If you just take out the users, and if you could take out ALL of them, you still have a problem. The suppliers will, in a panic, try to drum up new markets. Otherwise, they're nothing, and they can't stand THAT!
What to do?
You motivate the users first, and insure that there is a core group strong enough to stick to their guns, who will in turn help the other users to clean up and see a clearer world. Not all will, but you don't need them ALL. Nothing is ever unanimous except in gentleman's agreements, and even then only part of the time.
After you have a few users cleaned up and ready to go, you keep that effort up, and start in after the suppliers. You set the cleaned up users as your "army", because they know better than any other what they've come out of, and what's in store for the ones who fall into it. Nothing is more motivated than when you motivate a man for himself, his friends, and his family.
You can't win by just going after one side or the other, it has to be balanced out.
What this approach does is NOT remove discontent, nor eradicate evil influences. It does both in a measure, but not to completion. Rather than remove discontent, you motivate people to provide for their own contentment, rather than expecting it from the hand of their masters.
Some will find that contentment in assisting others to see the light. Some will only find it in erasing the masters, others will find their contentment in other areas. ALL will be working towards the same goal, but along their own individual paths.
The media is a tool, and nothing more. WE feed the media, and the masters too, for that matter. The masters direct the media, which in turn influences us, who then give them more money to feed from. Rinse, wash, repeat.
The media is used to create and inflate these diversions and divisions for "THEM", and like happy little puppies, we're all to willing to comply. At that point, party A sets HIMSELF against party B, there is a division, and the game is afoot. Meanwhile, the masters laugh, pat themselves on the back, and figure out which one of the other masters they want to stab in the back while we aren't looking, because we're distracted and divided, fighting amongst ourselves.
Make no mistake, at some point it all IS going to blow up. What we have to do at this point is decide what state "WE" are going to be found in when it becomes "WE" vs. "THEM".
United we stand...
This may be where we start arguing again...
I'm not interested in drying up discontent, because whoever sets himself to that task is asking the impossible of himself. Discontented people will always find something to be discontented about. You can give them a golden palace full of servants, and they will complain about the color of the draperies or the quality of the servants. Personally, I chalk it up to human greed, which appears to me to not be restricted to those at the top of the heap. It seems to be found in all strata.
Discontent can only be cured by the discontented himself, in his own mind, because that's where discontent starts, regardless of external stimuli. We can't do it for him, he must do it himself if it is to be done at all.
Further, by attacking the rank and file in any of the endeavors you mentioned, whether you attack "supply" side OR "demand" side, you are trying to get at the symptoms, not the disease. Diseases are frequently generated by tiny, specific, organisms which need to be effectively dealt with. It's not effective to beat the body to cure a cold. I'm afraid my analogy may be at a loss, since so many these days are conditioned that medical science often DOES treat symptoms instead of diseases.
So then, I'm not interested in "saving the world" in the usual sense. I'm of the opinion that once the virus is removed, the world can get on with the business of saving itself. Not all will. The worst of the discontented will be... ahem... "content" to be discontented. There will always be those striving to climb to the top of the heap, be the "boss", and own the world. Without vigilance as to their designs, we'll just wind up right back where we are now.
BUT... if, for the time being, we can successfully remove, restrain, or in some other way invalidate and disempower those now thought of as "TPTB", then there is a chance that the world, as is commonly perceived, will be able to heal itself, in a large part. I think that people should be left to their own devices for the most part, barring the disabled, to make of their lives what they will. "THEY" will not allow that willingly, though, because it removes their base of power. Without that power over "others" or "the masses" or whatever one wants to call us, "THEY" are nothing. Nothing at all. Not even in their OWN eyes.
THAT scares hell out of 'em, right down in their cores. They'll never admit that, of course. They'll rage and bluster about how they're something special, "better than", and all that rot, but they KNOW, right where it counts, right down in their middles. I've seen the same sort of thing in other folks around me, and I'll bet you have too. it's the same principle, writ larger.
What's required is for those of us currently trying to rip out one another's throats at the bidding of "THEM" to stop, look around, and ask ourselves "who is really the enemy again?" When that happens, it will start to pull the rug of support right out from under "THEM", and the games will begin in earnest, as "THEY" try to regain and reassert "THEIR" control over the power base, which is us peons.
All that I'm laying out here is a strategy, not a tactic. Tactical discussions are best left in the Ops Room. With the basic strategy, however, one can figure out a tactical approach.
Again using the drug cartels as an example, who do you go after? The users? the suppliers? What part of the suppliers? If you just take out the suppliers, and if you could take ALL of them out, never to be in business again, you still have a problem. Lots of pissed off junkies with no way to get their fix. You may not know this, but I do - a junkie in need of a fix is one of the most dangerous things in the world. A junkie right after his fix is one of the easiest victims in the world.
If you just take out the users, and if you could take out ALL of them, you still have a problem. The suppliers will, in a panic, try to drum up new markets. Otherwise, they're nothing, and they can't stand THAT!
What to do?
You motivate the users first, and insure that there is a core group strong enough to stick to their guns, who will in turn help the other users to clean up and see a clearer world. Not all will, but you don't need them ALL. Nothing is ever unanimous except in gentleman's agreements, and even then only part of the time.
After you have a few users cleaned up and ready to go, you keep that effort up, and start in after the suppliers. You set the cleaned up users as your "army", because they know better than any other what they've come out of, and what's in store for the ones who fall into it. Nothing is more motivated than when you motivate a man for himself, his friends, and his family.
You can't win by just going after one side or the other, it has to be balanced out.
What this approach does is NOT remove discontent, nor eradicate evil influences. It does both in a measure, but not to completion. Rather than remove discontent, you motivate people to provide for their own contentment, rather than expecting it from the hand of their masters.
Some will find that contentment in assisting others to see the light. Some will only find it in erasing the masters, others will find their contentment in other areas. ALL will be working towards the same goal, but along their own individual paths.
The media is a tool, and nothing more. WE feed the media, and the masters too, for that matter. The masters direct the media, which in turn influences us, who then give them more money to feed from. Rinse, wash, repeat.
The media is used to create and inflate these diversions and divisions for "THEM", and like happy little puppies, we're all to willing to comply. At that point, party A sets HIMSELF against party B, there is a division, and the game is afoot. Meanwhile, the masters laugh, pat themselves on the back, and figure out which one of the other masters they want to stab in the back while we aren't looking, because we're distracted and divided, fighting amongst ourselves.
Make no mistake, at some point it all IS going to blow up. What we have to do at this point is decide what state "WE" are going to be found in when it becomes "WE" vs. "THEM".
United we stand...
Originally posted by maybereal11
So please tell me who you are referring to when you say "THEY", because if you are referring to my fellow US Citizens, then I will choose to stand beside them against "zenophobes" "bigots" and "racists" such as yourself.
Yes I was referring to some of your fellow US citizens.
Specifically the 15% of Muslim Americans under 30 and the 6% of Muslim Americans above 30 who feel that suicide bombings in the defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified.
pewforum.org...
Nice line of insults from a man who chooses to stand beside Muslims who support suicide bombers.
Go figure.
Guys like you are so naive that you are dangerous. To fellow Americans.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by ollncasino]
[edit on 25-8-2010 by ollncasino]
Originally posted by ollncasino
Nice line of insults from a man who chooses to stand beside Muslims who support suicide bombers.
It's probably not worth my effort, but I will point this out:
Those of us who are supporting the Park51/Cordoba Initiative project are actually choosing to stand beside the Muslims who have condemned suicide bombings.
Originally posted by americandingbat
Originally posted by ollncasino
Nice line of insults from a man who chooses to stand beside Muslims who support suicide bombers.
It's probably not worth my effort, but I will point this out:
Those of us who are supporting the Park51/Cordoba Initiative project are actually choosing to stand beside the Muslims who have condemned suicide bombings.
Hello americandingbat
I've been searching for what both American and non American Muslims have to say about the Park51/Cordoba Initiative project and really haven't come up with much.
May I ask for anything you could share from the words of Muslim men.
Thank you,
sweetliberty
edit to add... I didn't see any Muslim men in this video. I will share my findings when I google in my search for Muslim men speak out (American or Non).
[edit on 25-8-2010 by sweetliberty]
reply to post by ollncasino
Is there any proof that this Imam and his particular followers hold that view? I keep asking that but no one has yet offered an answer. And before anyone asks, yes, I know there isn't any proof that they don't either. That doesn't eliminate the question, though, and they are innocent until proved guilty.
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
Is there any proof that this Imam and his particular followers hold that view? I keep asking that but no one has yet offered an answer. And before anyone asks, yes, I know there isn't any proof that they don't either. That doesn't eliminate the question, though, and they are innocent until proved guilty.
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
reply to post by sweetliberty
The best online sources I've found for Imam Rauf's positions on terrorism and other issues are:
The FAQ at Cordoba Initiative:
FAQ
and his writings for the Washington Post On Faith blog:
Archive of Feisal Abdul Rauf On Faith posts
Some excerpts from the FAQ:
Excerpts from the On Faith blog:
Source
Source
The best online sources I've found for Imam Rauf's positions on terrorism and other issues are:
The FAQ at Cordoba Initiative:
FAQ
and his writings for the Washington Post On Faith blog:
Archive of Feisal Abdul Rauf On Faith posts
Some excerpts from the FAQ:
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has always condemned terrorism. Here are his words from his 2004 book, What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America: “The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong – and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people; no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. God does not want us to kill each other.”
When Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror, those actions should be condemned. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.
Excerpts from the On Faith blog:
The center will be open to everyone, not just Muslims. That is our mission - to provide common ground for people of all faiths.
Freedom of religion is something we hold dear. It is the core of what America is all about, and it is what people worldwide respect about our country. The Qur'an itself says compulsion in religion is wrong.
Source
What this unfortunate Army major did was against the laws of Islam, even though news accounts said he was an observant Muslim. It is too early to understand his motivations and mental stability. He obviously was violating his faith when he undertook this act. Killing is as much a sin in Islam as it is in Christianity, Judaism and all the major religions. Taking the law into one's own hands is against Islamic teachings.
Source
Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by ollncasino
Is there any proof that this Imam and his particular followers hold that view? I keep asking that but no one has yet offered an answer. And before anyone asks, yes, I know there isn't any proof that they don't either. That doesn't eliminate the question, though, and they are innocent until proved guilty.
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
Hello, I know you specified your question to ollncasino so I hope you don't mind if I add my opinion on your question.
Yes, the Americans are innocent until proven guilty
But I'm not finding much on the views of American Muslim men
I'm also not seeing any American Muslim men in any protests. I will search deeper for this but I would love to hear from more American Muslim men.
Thanks,
sweetliberty
reply to post by sweetliberty
As far as the position of other Muslim men go, we can extrapolate from the numbers that ollncasino posted:
85% of American Muslims under age 30 them do not think that suicide bombings are ever justified, and 94% of American Muslims over age 30 do not think suicide bombings are ever justified.
One reason I think it's important to support this project is the discrepancy between the under-30s and the over-30s. Maybe some of that is just youthful fervor, but I am concerned that the increasing ostracization of Islam typified by some of the reactions to this proposed community center could tend to push young Muslims who dislike being stereotyped into the desperation that contributes to a belief that suicide bombing may sometimes be a legitimate action.
As far as the position of other Muslim men go, we can extrapolate from the numbers that ollncasino posted:
85% of American Muslims under age 30 them do not think that suicide bombings are ever justified, and 94% of American Muslims over age 30 do not think suicide bombings are ever justified.
One reason I think it's important to support this project is the discrepancy between the under-30s and the over-30s. Maybe some of that is just youthful fervor, but I am concerned that the increasing ostracization of Islam typified by some of the reactions to this proposed community center could tend to push young Muslims who dislike being stereotyped into the desperation that contributes to a belief that suicide bombing may sometimes be a legitimate action.
reply to post by sweetliberty
Well, the Imam in question is a Muslim American. He is an Arab American and is a moderate Sufi Muslim. Do he and his followers, being the central focus of this issue after all, count as American Muslims?
Granted, all of his statements condeming terror and the taking of innocent life by anyone for any reason being contrary to the teachings of the world's faiths and his own interpretation of Islam could all be a smokescreen, but on what would one base such an assumption? That's the question I keep coming to for some reason.
Well, the Imam in question is a Muslim American. He is an Arab American and is a moderate Sufi Muslim. Do he and his followers, being the central focus of this issue after all, count as American Muslims?
Granted, all of his statements condeming terror and the taking of innocent life by anyone for any reason being contrary to the teachings of the world's faiths and his own interpretation of Islam could all be a smokescreen, but on what would one base such an assumption? That's the question I keep coming to for some reason.
reply to post by americandingbat
Awesome, thank you for sharing that, I've read on some of it already but I'm going to take time out to read what you are sharing again.
Thank you
The video got me to thinking about a few things.
First, it wasn't violent thank God.
Second, the main man in the video was just a puppet playing a small part in the grand scheme of things, lol.
Third, for a long time now I've been seeing and hearing many many people speaking for the imam and the other American Muslim men.
I hope to find more information on the views of the American Muslim men since their voice is very important to me.
In their household, they are the leaders, just as the imam has been leading the local community for over 20 years.
I respect what the American Muslim women have to say very much but even they look to the men for guidance.
This is what I found when searching for "muslim men speak out"
Sexual Harrassment of Muslim womenwww.themodernreligion.com...
Muslim Day (1 of 3) "Homosexuals Must Be Killed" Muslims www.youtube.com...
Muslim Leaders Gather To Speak Out On Al-Arianwww.jihadwatch.org...
Displaced Women Finally Speak Out Against Talibanwww.jihadwatch.org...
Dozens speak out against planned mosque near ground zero at NYC hearing on landmark statuswww.foxnews.com...
This is what came up in order as it was shown.
I know the majority are men who lead in the culture, with great respect to that, I'm trying to hear the voices of the Muslim men as opposed to the politicians or anyone else.
Again, thank you very much for the information, I will read up on it again
Best regards,
sweetliberty
Awesome, thank you for sharing that, I've read on some of it already but I'm going to take time out to read what you are sharing again.
Thank you
The video got me to thinking about a few things.
First, it wasn't violent thank God.
Second, the main man in the video was just a puppet playing a small part in the grand scheme of things, lol.
Third, for a long time now I've been seeing and hearing many many people speaking for the imam and the other American Muslim men.
I hope to find more information on the views of the American Muslim men since their voice is very important to me.
In their household, they are the leaders, just as the imam has been leading the local community for over 20 years.
I respect what the American Muslim women have to say very much but even they look to the men for guidance.
This is what I found when searching for "muslim men speak out"
Sexual Harrassment of Muslim womenwww.themodernreligion.com...
Muslim Day (1 of 3) "Homosexuals Must Be Killed" Muslims www.youtube.com...
Muslim Leaders Gather To Speak Out On Al-Arianwww.jihadwatch.org...
Displaced Women Finally Speak Out Against Talibanwww.jihadwatch.org...
Dozens speak out against planned mosque near ground zero at NYC hearing on landmark statuswww.foxnews.com...
This is what came up in order as it was shown.
I know the majority are men who lead in the culture, with great respect to that, I'm trying to hear the voices of the Muslim men as opposed to the politicians or anyone else.
Again, thank you very much for the information, I will read up on it again
Best regards,
sweetliberty
German Authorities close Mosque which Promoted Holy War against the West
Christoph Ahlhaus, Hamburg’s secretary of the interior, announced Monday: “Today we closed the Taiba mosque because young men were being turned into religious fanatics there. Behind the scenes, a supposed cultural organization shamelessly used the freedoms of our democratic rule of law to promote holy war. Hamburg cannot become a cradle for Islamists capable of violence.”
As long ago as January 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani declared in a State Department Open Forum that Islamic supremacists controlled most mosques in America.
Terrorism expert Yehudit Barsky confirmed in 2005, that 80% of the mosques in the USA “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence.”
frontpagemag.com...
The New York Police Department has issued a report warning that Wahhabi (Saudi Arabian financed) mosques serve as incubators for "homegrown" Islamic radicals.
www.nypdshield.org...
It is thought highly probable by analysts that the Mosque at ground zero is being financed by a Wahhabi Saudi Arabian source, although the Muslim group responsible refuses to reveal the source of funding of its $100-plus million super mosque.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has declared that those critical of the construction of an Islamic super mosque within two blocks of the site where 3,000 people were murdered by Saudi Arabian Islamic radicals "ought to be ashamed of themselves" for being intolerant.
Moreover, he categorically rejected the idea that it was reasonable, let alone necessary, to determine the source of funds for the $100-plus million mega-mosque near Ground Zero.
townhall.com...
Christoph Ahlhaus, Hamburg’s secretary of the interior, announced Monday: “Today we closed the Taiba mosque because young men were being turned into religious fanatics there. Behind the scenes, a supposed cultural organization shamelessly used the freedoms of our democratic rule of law to promote holy war. Hamburg cannot become a cradle for Islamists capable of violence.”
As long ago as January 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani declared in a State Department Open Forum that Islamic supremacists controlled most mosques in America.
Terrorism expert Yehudit Barsky confirmed in 2005, that 80% of the mosques in the USA “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence.”
frontpagemag.com...
The New York Police Department has issued a report warning that Wahhabi (Saudi Arabian financed) mosques serve as incubators for "homegrown" Islamic radicals.
www.nypdshield.org...
It is thought highly probable by analysts that the Mosque at ground zero is being financed by a Wahhabi Saudi Arabian source, although the Muslim group responsible refuses to reveal the source of funding of its $100-plus million super mosque.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has declared that those critical of the construction of an Islamic super mosque within two blocks of the site where 3,000 people were murdered by Saudi Arabian Islamic radicals "ought to be ashamed of themselves" for being intolerant.
Moreover, he categorically rejected the idea that it was reasonable, let alone necessary, to determine the source of funds for the $100-plus million mega-mosque near Ground Zero.
townhall.com...
reply to post by ollncasino
And if there's ever any proof that such activity takes place at Park51, then similar legal action should be taken. But I will repeat again the question no one seems willing to answer:
Is there any proof currently that this (apparently) moderate Sufi Imam, or his followers, have ever been or are currently, planning, committing, threatening, or facilitating militant or violent activity of any kind? Because the moment there is, I will 100% support legal action being taken to prevent them from doing so.
But if there isn't, then I still don't know what the basis for any assumption that they are or will might arise from.
And if there's ever any proof that such activity takes place at Park51, then similar legal action should be taken. But I will repeat again the question no one seems willing to answer:
Is there any proof currently that this (apparently) moderate Sufi Imam, or his followers, have ever been or are currently, planning, committing, threatening, or facilitating militant or violent activity of any kind? Because the moment there is, I will 100% support legal action being taken to prevent them from doing so.
But if there isn't, then I still don't know what the basis for any assumption that they are or will might arise from.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
Is there any proof currently that this (apparently) moderate Sufi Imam, or his followers, have ever been or are currently, planning, committing, threatening, or facilitating militant or violent activity of any kind? Because the moment there is, I will 100% support legal action being taken to prevent them from doing so.
I agree, as soon as there is proof we should take legal action.
However, why does the Imam refuse to reveal the source of his funding?
Is it because the funding is coming from the hard line Saudi Arabian Wahhabism/Salafism school of Islam that demands that we all live out life in accordance with 7th century Islam?
The school of Wahhabism/Salafism is the hard-line school of Islamic doctrine that almost all Muslim terrorists come from.
www.nypdshield.org...
In addition, even if the mosque isn't a Wahhabi mosque, do you we have any proof that 15% of the Muslim congregation under 30 and 6% of the congregation above 30 won't reflect the American Muslim nation average in that they support suicide bombing to a greater or lesser extent?
pewforum.org...
reply to post by ollncasino
They have agreed to work with the government to make sure they're not taking money from terrorists or terrorist supporters; what more do they need to do?
And considering the unfortunately very real presence of actual radical, terrorist-supporting mosques and madrasses in the NYC area, why would extremists attend this mosque?
They have agreed to work with the government to make sure they're not taking money from terrorists or terrorist supporters; what more do they need to do?
And considering the unfortunately very real presence of actual radical, terrorist-supporting mosques and madrasses in the NYC area, why would extremists attend this mosque?
It's obvious this isn't a local issue and never was. As the Imam seems to feel the need to travel outside of the United States for understanding,
acceptance and funding.
IMO as far as leaders go, the Imam fails greatly. In reading "Preventing chaos" the Imam states
thestar.com.my.../2008/3/9/lifefocus/20576442&sec=lifefocus
His statements are correct. I ask, if he understands how serious this is, why do we American's still have many questions that have to result in protesting as a hope to get these questions answered?
As it stands, 70% of Americans are against the building of the community center being built at the location questioned.
If the Imam is a leader and is concerned about preventing chaos, xenophobia and outright dehumanization, why isn't he speaking to the American Citizens who desperately need questions answered.
As for this www.cordobainitiative.org.../frequently-asked-questions FAQ, it becomes confusing.
It's thrid party and it comes from another point of view of the Imam's words.
On one hand it states these are the words of the Imam and his wife but I ask, which words are his words?
This isn't xenophobia. It's lack of communication from the leader in question.
It sucks this man is being controlled by our government as puppeting around the world when his fellow Americans are left with others speaking for him.
That only proves there are puppets for puppets
sl
[edit on 25-8-2010 by sweetliberty]
IMO as far as leaders go, the Imam fails greatly. In reading "Preventing chaos" the Imam states
Immunising a country against the pandemic of xenophobia and outright dehumanisation is serious business.
thestar.com.my.../2008/3/9/lifefocus/20576442&sec=lifefocus
His statements are correct. I ask, if he understands how serious this is, why do we American's still have many questions that have to result in protesting as a hope to get these questions answered?
As it stands, 70% of Americans are against the building of the community center being built at the location questioned.
If the Imam is a leader and is concerned about preventing chaos, xenophobia and outright dehumanization, why isn't he speaking to the American Citizens who desperately need questions answered.
As for this www.cordobainitiative.org.../frequently-asked-questions FAQ, it becomes confusing.
It's thrid party and it comes from another point of view of the Imam's words.
On one hand it states these are the words of the Imam and his wife but I ask, which words are his words?
This isn't xenophobia. It's lack of communication from the leader in question.
It sucks this man is being controlled by our government as puppeting around the world when his fellow Americans are left with others speaking for him.
That only proves there are puppets for puppets
sl
[edit on 25-8-2010 by sweetliberty]
reply to post by ollncasino
I agree that he should disclose. I'm always in favor of transparency when it comes to funding for anything. Are they required to legally, though? And does not doing so prove anything automatically? And what of their agreement to work with the government (not that I trust "the government" implicitly either, mind you) to assure that funding is not originating from illicit sources?
Basically what I've been asking is this:
Other than 1) This is a Muslim prayer center, and 2) It's somewhat near ground zero, and 3) There have been mosques in the past used as fronts for violent radicalism, what concrete facts are there about this particular planned center and its prospective patrons specifically that proves any link - even the smallest link - to violent radicalism or Wahhabism? Because those two facts alone are not sufficient to prove that I should advocate the nonexistence of this planned community center containing a prayer space on one floor in my opinion.
I agree that he should disclose. I'm always in favor of transparency when it comes to funding for anything. Are they required to legally, though? And does not doing so prove anything automatically? And what of their agreement to work with the government (not that I trust "the government" implicitly either, mind you) to assure that funding is not originating from illicit sources?
Basically what I've been asking is this:
Other than 1) This is a Muslim prayer center, and 2) It's somewhat near ground zero, and 3) There have been mosques in the past used as fronts for violent radicalism, what concrete facts are there about this particular planned center and its prospective patrons specifically that proves any link - even the smallest link - to violent radicalism or Wahhabism? Because those two facts alone are not sufficient to prove that I should advocate the nonexistence of this planned community center containing a prayer space on one floor in my opinion.
Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by ollncasino
I agree that he should disclose. I'm always in favor of transparency when it comes to funding for anything. Are they required to legally, though? And does not doing so prove anything automatically? And what of their agreement to work with the government (not that I trust "the government" implicitly either, mind you) to assure that funding is not originating from illicit sources?
Basically what I've been asking is this:
Other than 1) This is a Muslim prayer center, and 2) It's somewhat near ground zero, and 3) There have been mosques in the past used as fronts for violent radicalism, what concrete facts are there about this particular planned center and its prospective patrons specifically that proves any link - even the smallest link - to violent radicalism or Wahhabism? Because those two facts alone are not sufficient to prove that I should advocate the nonexistence of this planned community center containing a prayer space on one floor in my opinion.
I have to agree with you on that level.
Keeping things as simple and basic as possible is the best way approach these issues.
I also like that you called it a Muslim prayer center. It has extras but that's the core of it.
In that perspective there should be no problem because I'm sure many will accept this but also with eyes wide open, lol.
If everyone were in agreement with you that there is not sufficient proof, then I might ask you, do you feel the Imam is handling the issues sufficiently with the American's who question this?
Thank you,
sweetliberty
reply to post by sweetliberty
Well, I honestly don't know how I feel on that point. I do feel that he should probably disclose the funding in the interest of transparency, and just to assuage people's concerns. But then I ask, if this wasn't a Muslim oriented issue would we even be asking these questions? And should he be required to on that basis alone? That is, is there any evidence that any of the funding is illicit, or do we just want to know because this is a Muslim issue and about a mosque, and somehow in the zeitgeist that has become synonymous with a potential threat, whether real or not?
So then I question the fairness of that. I go back and forth. I do personally think he should disclose though, in the interest of proceeding with the building unhindered if nothing else. But it seems that if there was smoke indicative of a proverbial fire, it would be known and would be being investigated already. Which is why I question what the basis for the suspicion is, beyond just "it's a mosque near ground zero."
As to the other questions people have, I think he's demonstrated a record of denouncing violence and terrorism personally. I am open to all the possibilities, but I just don't see any evidence (that doesn't mean there isn't any) of any wrongdoing at this point. And if there is, then where is it?
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
Well, I honestly don't know how I feel on that point. I do feel that he should probably disclose the funding in the interest of transparency, and just to assuage people's concerns. But then I ask, if this wasn't a Muslim oriented issue would we even be asking these questions? And should he be required to on that basis alone? That is, is there any evidence that any of the funding is illicit, or do we just want to know because this is a Muslim issue and about a mosque, and somehow in the zeitgeist that has become synonymous with a potential threat, whether real or not?
So then I question the fairness of that. I go back and forth. I do personally think he should disclose though, in the interest of proceeding with the building unhindered if nothing else. But it seems that if there was smoke indicative of a proverbial fire, it would be known and would be being investigated already. Which is why I question what the basis for the suspicion is, beyond just "it's a mosque near ground zero."
As to the other questions people have, I think he's demonstrated a record of denouncing violence and terrorism personally. I am open to all the possibilities, but I just don't see any evidence (that doesn't mean there isn't any) of any wrongdoing at this point. And if there is, then where is it?
[edit on 8/25/2010 by AceWombat04]
reply to post by AceWombat04
Your questions are great questions that we all should ask ourselves. You may have asked those questions internally and they may not have been directed at me but I would like to ask myself the same questions
I hope so. As for any race or culture I do believe we do question others if they are innocent or not somehow having ties (remotely or not) to something of such magnitude of the deaths of civilians.
Yes.
IMO, this Imam has not answered questions that are very important to Americans who have questions. If his heart is to spread tolerance and acceptance, I’m at a point of begging him to lead by example.
I feel for you! So many of us go back and forth as to being fair and in the best interest of all.
What complicates things is these righteous finger pointers who want to paint their fellow Americans who question a leader as a HATE issue.
They are quick to call others names, label them and all for their own personal agenda against people they themselves hate. The truth is that they are the one's stuck in the past and haven't evolved just as the extremists they oppose are stuck.
So as for the moment, it’s great that they are taking a break so others can ask questions.
Personally, I couldn’t tell you the difference between those of Eastern decent, lol.
I truly don’t see color! As a person who is more of a “helper” or “follower” type personality, I seek leaders who speak their goals regardless if I like what they have to say or not. Those men are worthy of respect because they tell you to step up or step aside.
The leaders of ATS are prime examples of real leaders.
They CAN and WILL do their best to address issues. We either like their final answer or we don’t but we aren’t easily kicked aside and called names as the people who harbor hate do to us.
Seeing how this has touched all sides of the coin and their emotions, this Imam should be here leading by example and addressing Americans who feel they aren’t truly being heard. Americans who feel they have no choice but to protest in order to address issues.
I am truly ashamed of those Americans who result to such strong name calling. They are the biggest part of the problem at this time.
They are puppets of a different agenda called selfishness. They are only feeding their inner hate. They are more of the problem then a part of the solution.
They too should question this as they are sure to question everything else.
Best regards,
sweetlibety
[edit on 25-8-2010 by sweetliberty]
Your questions are great questions that we all should ask ourselves. You may have asked those questions internally and they may not have been directed at me but I would like to ask myself the same questions
But then I ask, if this wasn't a Muslim oriented issue would we even be asking these questions?
I hope so. As for any race or culture I do believe we do question others if they are innocent or not somehow having ties (remotely or not) to something of such magnitude of the deaths of civilians.
And should he be required to on that basis alone?
Yes.
That is, is there any evidence that any of the funding is illicit, or do we just want to know because this is a Muslim issue and about a mosque, and somehow in the zeitgeist that has become synonymous with a potential threat, whether real or not?
IMO, this Imam has not answered questions that are very important to Americans who have questions. If his heart is to spread tolerance and acceptance, I’m at a point of begging him to lead by example.
So then I question the fairness of that. I go back and forth.
I feel for you! So many of us go back and forth as to being fair and in the best interest of all.
What complicates things is these righteous finger pointers who want to paint their fellow Americans who question a leader as a HATE issue.
They are quick to call others names, label them and all for their own personal agenda against people they themselves hate. The truth is that they are the one's stuck in the past and haven't evolved just as the extremists they oppose are stuck.
So as for the moment, it’s great that they are taking a break so others can ask questions.
Personally, I couldn’t tell you the difference between those of Eastern decent, lol.
I truly don’t see color! As a person who is more of a “helper” or “follower” type personality, I seek leaders who speak their goals regardless if I like what they have to say or not. Those men are worthy of respect because they tell you to step up or step aside.
The leaders of ATS are prime examples of real leaders.
They CAN and WILL do their best to address issues. We either like their final answer or we don’t but we aren’t easily kicked aside and called names as the people who harbor hate do to us.
Seeing how this has touched all sides of the coin and their emotions, this Imam should be here leading by example and addressing Americans who feel they aren’t truly being heard. Americans who feel they have no choice but to protest in order to address issues.
I am truly ashamed of those Americans who result to such strong name calling. They are the biggest part of the problem at this time.
They are puppets of a different agenda called selfishness. They are only feeding their inner hate. They are more of the problem then a part of the solution.
They too should question this as they are sure to question everything else.
Best regards,
sweetlibety
[edit on 25-8-2010 by sweetliberty]
Originally posted by maybereal11
Avoid Fear Mongering…inferring that we are on the precipice of having Sharia Law instituted in the United States
(1) Sharia Law is already operating in England.
Perhaps the introduction of Sharia law in the USA isn't as far off as you like to imagine?
UK’s first official sharia courts ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
www.timesonline.co.uk...
(2) Ground Zero Iman, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has stated that Muslims want secular law to not be in conlfict with the Koran and the Hadiths.
"At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty.
What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied."
newsweek.washingtonpost.com...
So the Ground Zero Mosque Iman has clearly stated an aim of Muslims is to make secular law comply with Sharia law. He makes no bones about it.
I would suggest that while you feel I am guilty of fear mongering, your head is firmly stuck in the ground.
new topics
-
Meadows, Giuliani Among 11 Indicted in Arizona in Latest 2020 Election Subversion Case
Mainstream News: 5 minutes ago -
Massachusetts Drag Queen Leads Young Kids in Free Palestine Chant
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 20 minutes ago -
Weinstein's conviction overturned
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago -
Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.
Above Politics: 3 hours ago -
Krystalnacht on today's most elite Universities?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago -
Chris Christie Wishes Death Upon Trump and Ramaswamy
Politicians & People: 3 hours ago -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media: 5 hours ago -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, major investor Goldman Sachs card only.
The Gray Area: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
VP's Secret Service agent brawls with other agents at Andrews
Mainstream News: 16 hours ago, 11 flags -
Krystalnacht on today's most elite Universities?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago, 7 flags -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues: 17 hours ago, 6 flags -
Weinstein's conviction overturned
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago, 6 flags -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events: 17 hours ago, 5 flags -
Electrical tricks for saving money
Education and Media: 15 hours ago, 5 flags -
Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.
Above Politics: 3 hours ago, 5 flags -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media: 5 hours ago, 3 flags -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, major investor Goldman Sachs card only.
The Gray Area: 8 hours ago, 2 flags -
Chris Christie Wishes Death Upon Trump and Ramaswamy
Politicians & People: 3 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 752 • : Vermilion -
VP's Secret Service agent brawls with other agents at Andrews
Mainstream News • 48 • : 5thHead -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 118 • : cherokeetroy -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 673 • : Thoughtful3 -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs • 66 • : SchrodingersRat -
Weinstein's conviction overturned
Mainstream News • 14 • : Encia22 -
Meadows, Giuliani Among 11 Indicted in Arizona in Latest 2020 Election Subversion Case
Mainstream News • 0 • : IndieA -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues • 83 • : SchrodingersRat -
Supreme Court Oral Arguments 4.25.2024 - Are PRESIDENTS IMMUNE From Later Being Prosecuted.
Above Politics • 43 • : RazorV66 -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 284 • : 5thHead